[B-Greek] Relative time of participles
George F Somsel
gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sun Feb 11 21:52:27 EST 2007
If one wishes to strictly follow the principle that the aorist participle references action prior to the time of the main verb, then there might be a problem at least with regard to Acts 25.13, but it might be possible to explain Acts 12.25 without needing to jump through hoops in order to do so. Here is what A.T. has to say about this subject
(ε) Subsequent Action not Expressed by the Aorist Participle. Some writers have held this as possible, though no satisfactory examples have been adduced. Gildersleeve denies that Stahl succeeds in his implication. “Coincidence or adverbiality will explain the tense.” Burton likewise admits that no certain instance of an aorist part. used to express subsequent action has been found. He claims the idiom in the N. T. to be due to “Aramaic influence.” But we can no longer call in the Aramaic or Hebrew, alas, unless the Greek itself will not square with itself. The instances cited by Burton are all in Acts (16:23; 22:24; 23:35; 24:23; 25:13). “In all these cases it is scarcely possible to doubt that the participle (which is without the article and follows the verb) is equivalent to καί with a co-ordinate verb and refers to an action [Page 862] subsequent in fact and in thought to that of the verb which it follows.” This view is held by Prof. Sir
W. M. Ramsay to apply to Ac. 16:6, and is in fact essential to his interpretation of that passage. Rackham adds Ac. 12:25 and regards these examples as “decisive.” Another instance urged is Ac. 21:14. But are they “decisive” after all? Gildersleeve is still unconvinced. Blass bluntly says that such a notion “is not Greek” and even refuses to follow the uncials in Ac. 25:13 in reading ASPASAMENOI rather than ASPASOMENOI. Moulton refuses to follow Rackham in his interpretation of Ac. 12:25: “But to take SUNPARALABONTES in this way involves an unblushing aorist of subsequent action, and this I must maintain has not yet been paralleled in the N. T. or outside.” And, once more, Schmiedel comments on Ac. 16:6: “It has to be maintained that the participle must contain, if not something antecedent to ‘they went’ (DIHLQON), at least something synchronous with it, in no case a thing subsequent to it, if all the rules of
grammar and all sure understanding of language are not to be given up.” The matter might safely be left in the hands of these three great grammarians. But an appeal to the examples will be interesting. As to Ac. 12:25, hUPESTREYAN—PLHRWSANTES THN DIAKONIAN, SUNPARALABONTES IWANHN, there is no problem at all unless EIS be read rather than EC or APO. It is true that SinaiticusBL read EIS, but that reading is contradicted by the context. In 11:30 it is plain that Barnabas and Saul were sent from Antioch to Jerusalem, and in 13:3, 5, they are in Antioch with John Mark. The great uncials are not always correct, but if they are right in reading EIS, the text has been otherwise tampered with. Even granting the genuineness of EIS and the “subsequent” aorist, we are absolutely in the dark as to the sense of the passage. With EIS the coincident aorist is good Greek, but still leaves us in the dark. With EC or APO there is no problem at all, PLHRWSANTES being antecedent, and
SUNPARALABONTES coincident. In 16:6, DIHLQON DE THN FRUGIAN KAI GALATIKHN [Page 863] XWRAN, KWLUQENTES hUPO TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS LALHSAI TON LOGON EN THi ASIAi, the participle is naturally antecedent (or coincident). Paul was headed west for Asia, but, being forestalled by the Spirit, he turned farther north through “the Phrygian and Galatic region.” Later he tried to push on into Bithynia, but the Spirit again interposed and he deflected northwest to Troas (16:7 f.). One is not entitled to make KWLUQENTES=KAI EKWLUQHSAN because of the exigencies of a theory that demands that “the Phrygian and Galatic region” be Lycaonia (southern part of the Roman province of Galatia), which had already been traversed (16:1 f.). Besides, the narrative in 16:6 seems to be not resumptive, but a new statement of progress. Whatever the fate of the much discussed “South Galatian” theory, the point of grammar here is very clear. Another so-called instance is in 16:23, EBALON EIS
FULAKHN, PARAGGEILANTES TWi DESMWFULAKI. This is so obviously a case of coincident action that it would never have been adduced but for need of examples to support a theory elsewhere. Certainly “in 17:26 hORISAS is not ‘later’ than the EPOIHSEN in time” (Moulton, Prol., p. 133). Still worse is the instance in 21:14, MH PEIQOMENOU DE AUTOU HSUXASAMEN EIPONTES; TOU KURIOU TO QELHMA GINESQW. The participle is here necessarily antecedent or coincident (this last remark of acquiescence).
Robertson, A. (1919; 2006). A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (861). Logos.
In regard to Acts 12.25 the correct reading is almost surely EIS.
george
gfsomsel
_________
----- Original Message ----
From: Bert de Haan <b_dehaan at sympatico.ca>
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 8:53:45 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Relative time of participles
>Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:33:17 +0000
>From: "Bert de Haan" <b_dehaan at sympatico.ca>
>Subject: [B-Greek] Relative time of participles
>To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>Message-ID: <BAY15-F18433DCF3F74CBF2365A9A8B930 at phx.gbl>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
>In his book "An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek" C.F.D. Moule writes
>concerning the time relationship between a participle and the main verb:
>[quote] "When the context positively demands a decision as to the
>sequence of the actions referred to in the participle and the main verb
>respectively, it often turns out that a Present Participle alludes to an
>action with which the action of the main verb coincides (at least in part),
>while an Aorist Participle refers to action previous to what is referred to
>in the main verb. Consequently, the 'schoolboy' translation of an
>Aorist Participle by <having done so-and-so>, though entirely false to the
>essential meaning of an Aorist as such, turns out to be a fair
>approximation
>to the to the sense in its context more often than it deserves
>to." [/quote]
>A bit later he writes that this 'schoolboy' rule may even be safer for
>N.T. Greek than for the Classical writers.
>He lists a few exceptions (all the ones he knows of,) to this principle.
>(HE
>called it principle.)
>
>He writes all this after he explains the difference in aspect between the
>different tenses so I assume that that is what he is referring to when he
>writes; 'essential meaning of an Aorist as such.'
>
>My question is; Why would he call it entirely false? If it works that
>often, wouldn't there be more than coincidence at play here? It seems to
>me that the authors may well have intentionally written a participle in a
>particular tense to indicate relative time as well as aspect.
>Any thoughts?
>
>Bert de Haan
>
Some one suggested to me off-list (thank you) to make the question more
specific by including some examples. I don't mind doing that but the
examples are not my point. My point was that he can only find one clear
exception and one that is debatable.
Acts 25:13, KATHNTHSAN EIS KAISARIAN ASPASAMENOI TON FHSTON. He says that
assuming that the aorist participle is the correct reading this would be an
exception.
Acts 12 :25, BARNABAS KAI SAULOS hUPESTREYAN EX IEROUSALHM PLHRWSANTES THN
DIAKONIAN, He wrote; If EIS and not EX were demonstrably the right reading
this verse would be and exception.
I am not out to prove Moule wrong or right, I just would like to get a
better understanding of the participles.
Bert de Haan
---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
____________________________________________________________________________________
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list